Hey Pnix, I am not stopping you from moving on, feel free....
Before you do however, please post your CSD plot from the Tymphany 3 inch driver....You know just so others can learn to.....
Thanks in advance
D.
Hey Pnix, I am not stopping you from moving on, feel free....
Before you do however, please post your CSD plot from the Tymphany 3 inch driver....You know just so others can learn to.....
Thanks in advance
D.
Vifa 9 BGS 119/8
If you're interested measure it.
Just that it isn't "website material" but printed material. If you want to show the superiority of your driver in a comparison to other drivers YOU have to show comparative data not me. The type of material you're providing is just the same old audio marketing pseudo science consumers have to deal with year after year.
By the way what does all of this have to do with this thread? Please respond to the issues related to the thread. You leave a trail of unanswered questions. Most of your claims have been debunked 7 years ago but you're still making the same claims. I'm not willing to repeat what others have been saying over and over again.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/142467-driver-behaviour-pistonic-ocillation.html
2007 to 2106....There & back an audio journey!
Just that it isn't "website material" but printed material.
Ah, I see its ok for you to express an opinion based on "top secret" printed material .....Mmmmnn so you are really a SAA....secret audio agent! Maybe "00" should prefix your avatar
If you want to show the superiority of your driver in a comparison to other drivers YOU have to show comparative data not me.
I have shown you mine....You say you cant show me yours.....Takes me back to my youth!
The type of material you're providing is just the same old audio marketing pseudo science consumers have to deal with year after year.
Really....? "Same old"....I have never seen a sub 1 Ms CSD covering 300Hz up.....Please do post some of your "same old" CSD's....Just so we can all learn....
By the way what does all of this have to do with this thread?
Surely that is obvious....
Time domain integrity must be maintained from recording, through the electronics including all DSP and then of course vitally the loudspeaker driver. I have already posted asking questions and stating views on all aspects of the chain and its relevance to the OP software.
Please respond to the issues related to the thread.
Thats exactly what I started, but our exchange is proving to such fun and also illuminating I may have got distracted.....Oooops!
You leave a trail of unanswered questions. Most of your claims have been debunked 7 years ago but you're still making the same claims.
Curious, you quote a 2007 thread about the Manger driver, not a DSP / software topic in case you missed that....Which has a lot of well debated and interesting points about that unique driver....I am rather proud of that thread....Sorry it failed to educate / entertain you......Note to self, must try harder
I'm not willing to repeat what others have been saying over and over again.
Phew..... I bet we're all relieved to hear that!
As always with all due respect and a smidgin' of humour....
"00 Overkill" ....Over & Out old chap!
00 Overkill,
I don't want to keep this somewhat off topic discussion going and don't want to join in with pnix, but I fail to see how a BMR device is less resonant than a normal cone driver or that it actually has better time response. If there was such a thing as a truly infinitely stiff diaphragm and a perfect way to terminate the edge of a flat diaphragm type of device, perhaps, but that is far from reality with these types of drivers. Now add multiple driving points such as the MBR speakers I have viewed and you introduce narrowing focal points for radiation from the diaphragm with rising frequency. Believe me I have been down this road, without some serious materials modifications and rethinking of the entire device I don't believe they have any true advantage over a high quality dynamic radiator.
Very off topic so I'll leave it here. If you want to go off line that would be more respectful to the thread. Love to hear how you have overcome some of the serious issues with a flat diaphragm device.
I don't want to keep this somewhat off topic discussion going and don't want to join in with pnix, but I fail to see how a BMR device is less resonant than a normal cone driver or that it actually has better time response. If there was such a thing as a truly infinitely stiff diaphragm and a perfect way to terminate the edge of a flat diaphragm type of device, perhaps, but that is far from reality with these types of drivers. Now add multiple driving points such as the MBR speakers I have viewed and you introduce narrowing focal points for radiation from the diaphragm with rising frequency. Believe me I have been down this road, without some serious materials modifications and rethinking of the entire device I don't believe they have any true advantage over a high quality dynamic radiator.
Very off topic so I'll leave it here. If you want to go off line that would be more respectful to the thread. Love to hear how you have overcome some of the serious issues with a flat diaphragm device.
Last thoughts and sorry for rambling on
You are right Kindhornguy, I have rambled on too much and for most folks it will be off the DSP / software OP .....Sorry to all!
To close out and try to give a short graphical answer to why Bending Mode Drivers can be superior in time domain and power compared to pistonic cones and domes I have cut n paste the legendary ATC 150 S dome midrange CSD plot and compared it to my driver.....See attached and hope this helps?!!
All the best
Derek.
PS Also sorry if my attempts to introduce some humour to an otherwise pretty dull subject (we are deep into into geek land here!) dont come across as they would if we were actually chatting face to face but I am only trying to keep folks interested.
You are right Kindhornguy, I have rambled on too much and for most folks it will be off the DSP / software OP .....Sorry to all!
To close out and try to give a short graphical answer to why Bending Mode Drivers can be superior in time domain and power compared to pistonic cones and domes I have cut n paste the legendary ATC 150 S dome midrange CSD plot and compared it to my driver.....See attached and hope this helps?!!
All the best
Derek.
PS Also sorry if my attempts to introduce some humour to an otherwise pretty dull subject (we are deep into into geek land here!) dont come across as they would if we were actually chatting face to face but I am only trying to keep folks interested.
High res please?
Thanks Wesayso,
Looks sweet, but I cant read the detail, can you post a higher res image please?
Why does the plot stop at 5KHz? Is this the 3 inch Vifa full range driver you use in your arrays?
Also can you post an un-smoothed CSD plot with all X, Y & Z axis equal resolution / priority.
Lastly I cant read the time graduations...Is the first division 2ms running out to 10 ms?
Can you show an un-smoothed it with a zero to 3ms or 4ms to make it closer to the ATC and BMR time frames?
Thanks in advance and all the best
Derek.
Thanks Wesayso,
Looks sweet, but I cant read the detail, can you post a higher res image please?
Why does the plot stop at 5KHz? Is this the 3 inch Vifa full range driver you use in your arrays?
Also can you post an un-smoothed CSD plot with all X, Y & Z axis equal resolution / priority.
Lastly I cant read the time graduations...Is the first division 2ms running out to 10 ms?
Can you show an un-smoothed it with a zero to 3ms or 4ms to make it closer to the ATC and BMR time frames?
Thanks in advance and all the best
Derek.
Derek,
Waterfall response time and not having any high Q laggards was one of the major aspects I worked hard to overcome in my cone drivers. I did have to think differently than the common speaker designer when it came to materials used in the cone. The combination I came up with was key to getting the speakers to sound as clear as they do. At the same time it was all the tiny details that worked together and that included the surrounds material and even the adhesives used at each point.
As you say and can clearly show that ATC driver has some very long decay time, at the same time I think the more important point is the long hang time on those few discrete frequencies that will really smear the sound. This is the most prevalent reason that we normally only see a single FR without the waterfall in most response curves.
Waterfall response time and not having any high Q laggards was one of the major aspects I worked hard to overcome in my cone drivers. I did have to think differently than the common speaker designer when it came to materials used in the cone. The combination I came up with was key to getting the speakers to sound as clear as they do. At the same time it was all the tiny details that worked together and that included the surrounds material and even the adhesives used at each point.
As you say and can clearly show that ATC driver has some very long decay time, at the same time I think the more important point is the long hang time on those few discrete frequencies that will really smear the sound. This is the most prevalent reason that we normally only see a single FR without the waterfall in most response curves.
Derek, this is one array of 25 Vifa TC9 FD18-08 drivers as measured at the listening position in a living room with these settings:
As unsmoothed as it comes in REW. If you want to see the top end you've got to come listen to it first (don't want to start a comb filter discussion) and I'll show it afterwards. Take it for what it is, the average SPL reads ~ 70 dB and the plot goes down to 44 dB on the bottom. In my living room. Hardly the conditions in which the BMR or ATC were measured at I'd say...
I made this plot a while ago to show differences in a change of settings in the DSP used by me for my thread.
Last edited:
26dB range Vs 20dB
Thanks Wesayso,
Ahaa.....Now I see whats going on, its not the software that is smoothing the result its the arrays.....!
Compared to a pair of 24 driver arrays measured at the listening position, a single driver is going move 48 times further !!!
So whilst the 26dB range Vs the 20dB range is important....It pales to insignificance compared to the 48 drivers Vs a single driver....
What is the Sd of the driver you use?
I can work out the power / travel SPL's and come to a more level playing field comparison.
Thanks again and all the best
Derek.
Thanks Wesayso,
Ahaa.....Now I see whats going on, its not the software that is smoothing the result its the arrays.....!
Compared to a pair of 24 driver arrays measured at the listening position, a single driver is going move 48 times further !!!
So whilst the 26dB range Vs the 20dB range is important....It pales to insignificance compared to the 48 drivers Vs a single driver....
What is the Sd of the driver you use?
I can work out the power / travel SPL's and come to a more level playing field comparison.
Thanks again and all the best
Derek.
I wouldn't use this data to calculate it back to a single one. The bottom end is influenced by my room as it's hard to measure this without the room playing a mayor role at 2.5 to 3 meters. It wouldn't compare to a single drivers real potential.
It's plenty clean though and gives my arrays a nice and clear sound.
The driver mentioned by Pnix (Vifa 9 BGS 119/8) is a close relative of the TC9 FD-18-08 though with differences in cone material and motor used. I bet the Scan Speak 10F 8424G00 is a driver that may outperform the mentioned 9 BGS, the 9 BGS driver is replaced by the TG9 FD-10-08, the fibreglass coned sister driver of the TC9 FD-18-08 paper cone. It all started out as a happy family when Scan Speak was still designing those Vifa's.
(got to mention the full name of the TC9 FD18-08 as there are new drivers from Vifa bearing the same name but totally different in their build and performance)
It's plenty clean though and gives my arrays a nice and clear sound.
The driver mentioned by Pnix (Vifa 9 BGS 119/8) is a close relative of the TC9 FD-18-08 though with differences in cone material and motor used. I bet the Scan Speak 10F 8424G00 is a driver that may outperform the mentioned 9 BGS, the 9 BGS driver is replaced by the TG9 FD-10-08, the fibreglass coned sister driver of the TC9 FD-18-08 paper cone. It all started out as a happy family when Scan Speak was still designing those Vifa's.
(got to mention the full name of the TC9 FD18-08 as there are new drivers from Vifa bearing the same name but totally different in their build and performance)
Last edited:
Vifa Sd = 36
I have done a quick calculation...
Comparing driver sensitivity, driver Sd, array Sd measuring distance and dB range of the CSD plots my thinking goes along these lines:
My 4.5 inch driver has an Sd of 70 with a half space sensitivity of 91dB for 2.83 volts @ 1 meter.
The Vifa has an Sd of 36 with a half space sensitivity of 83.5dB / 1 watt @ 1 meter.
A pair of my 1.8 meter tall 16 driver arrays has an Sd of 2,240
A pair of your 2 meter tall (?) 24 driver per speaker arrays has an Sd of 1,730.
A pair of your arrays sensitivity at 1 meter should in theory be around 99.5 dB sensitive for 1 watt @ 1 meter.
Assuming a drop of 4.5dB(?) allowing for a 3 meter measuring distance we arrive at approx 95dB sensitivity for 1 watt.
So in order to hit your 70dB SPL peak and allow a decay down to 44dB (nice quiet room!) you would need approx 0.00390 of a watt....
Its no wonder the CSD looks so clean as the total energy each driver has to decay is miniscule !
I might be a bit out with some of my calculations here but not too far off the mark I think?
Cheers
Derek.
I have done a quick calculation...
Comparing driver sensitivity, driver Sd, array Sd measuring distance and dB range of the CSD plots my thinking goes along these lines:
My 4.5 inch driver has an Sd of 70 with a half space sensitivity of 91dB for 2.83 volts @ 1 meter.
The Vifa has an Sd of 36 with a half space sensitivity of 83.5dB / 1 watt @ 1 meter.
A pair of my 1.8 meter tall 16 driver arrays has an Sd of 2,240
A pair of your 2 meter tall (?) 24 driver per speaker arrays has an Sd of 1,730.
A pair of your arrays sensitivity at 1 meter should in theory be around 99.5 dB sensitive for 1 watt @ 1 meter.
Assuming a drop of 4.5dB(?) allowing for a 3 meter measuring distance we arrive at approx 95dB sensitivity for 1 watt.
So in order to hit your 70dB SPL peak and allow a decay down to 44dB (nice quiet room!) you would need approx 0.00390 of a watt....
Its no wonder the CSD looks so clean as the total energy each driver has to decay is miniscule !
I might be a bit out with some of my calculations here but not too far off the mark I think?
Cheers
Derek.
The cone of the TC 9 is only 2.6 gram (Mms), the BL is 2.91. It's quite clean in a waterfall plot (single driver) and would give your BMR an honest race apart from being a lot smaller and less efficient. The 10F is a hair bit cleaner even and more efficient than the TC9.
I do use 25 of them....
That's one louder, isn't it?
I do use 25 of them....
That's one louder, isn't it?
Attachments
Last edited:
From the attachment... "Since air cannot sustain a pressure change" .. pity he makes such an obvious erroneous statement. It is leaky room and/or a transducer that can not create pressure.
//
In the context of sound...Not filling boxes with air
Tnt,
The document is about sound and how air pressure at the ear drum is increased or decreased by sound ie a snapping twig or musical note.....Not raising the air pressure in a sealed box....Do you really think John is unaware that one can seal a box and increase the internal air pressure???
If you can find a sound with an infinite transient then one could argue that air could sustain a pressure change.....But as far as sine waves are concerned, once the HAS as analysed the first few cycles there is no more information to be retrieved.
As sine waves do not occur in nature the HAS has not developed a means for using them.
Tnt,
The document is about sound and how air pressure at the ear drum is increased or decreased by sound ie a snapping twig or musical note.....Not raising the air pressure in a sealed box....Do you really think John is unaware that one can seal a box and increase the internal air pressure???
If you can find a sound with an infinite transient then one could argue that air could sustain a pressure change.....But as far as sine waves are concerned, once the HAS as analysed the first few cycles there is no more information to be retrieved.
As sine waves do not occur in nature the HAS has not developed a means for using them.